Hot Topics:

From the editorial advisory board: Regulating guns

Posted:
01/19/2013 01:00:00 AM MST

President Barack Obama announced he would be calling on Congress to pass a number of new regulations on guns, including expanding background checks on buyers and a ban on assault weapons. He also said he would act without Congressional approval to increase the enforcement of existing laws. The NRA vowed to fight the president. What do you think?

Every time I've written about gun regulations in the past, I've received a profanity- and threat-laced anonymous e-mail from the same person telling me I better watch my back. Not terribly persuasive, but the caustic missives do underline the need for mental health outreach to the tortured souls in our midst. Ever since Cain and Abel, mankind has wrestled with anger management issues. I don't believe the NRA's arms race solution is the answer.

The president's recommendations are reasonable and his executive orders pose no threat to the Second Amendment. Congress has been asked to reestablish some boundaries on an untrammeled right to bear certain types of armament: military grade assault rifles and large capacity ammo magazines. Though "a small step for mankind," it's a good start. I would allow such weapons to be kept under lock and key at community firing ranges and prohibit their possession elsewhere -- this would be more in keeping with the Amendment's avowed purpose, maintaining a well-regulated "militia" (a body of ordinary citizens, not professional soldiers, subject to a modicum of governmental control).

Advertisement

The other truly significant request requiring congressional approval is mandatory background checks applicable to all firearms sales. Unprecedented in its scope, but almost universally accepted in concept, opposition to this legislation is based primarily on how hard it might be to accomplish. The last chance to stop a madman lies with a well-informed gun seller. We should give them that chance.

We're born of clay -- impressionable beings being constantly molded into our destiny. Everything that touches us (or not) -- family, friends, moral teachings (or not), and the media we voraciously consume -- shapes us. Our epidemic of gun violence is a many-faceted issue that starts with the shooter, all that molds him, and that which would contain him. It's only when something goes horribly wrong with that shaping and containing that guns become a problem.

President Obama is likely taking Rahm Emanuel's advice: "Never let a crisis go to waste." His is a feel-good effort that will accomplish little except distract us from the real issues: our lack of a moral compass, the breakdown of the family, and our anything-goes culture/pop-culture of violence and permissiveness combined with an ineffectual system of mental health screening and intervention. The "war on guns" is reactionary and, sadly, will do very little to stem the epidemic. See the "war on drugs."

I'm not advocating against common-sense steps around background checks, waiting periods, and restricted availability of certain types of weapons/ammunition. However I am very concerned about this president's tendency to abuse executive power and urge that he doesn't exceed his stated goal of acting to increase the enforcement of existing laws. If he over-reaches and pursues actions that would eviscerate the Second Amendment and/or our rights to privacy, he'll lose the support of millions of Americans in his efforts to deal with this problem.

The bodies of 20 slaughtered first grade children were still lying on the ground at Newtown Elementary School when the latest battle over how to address gun violence began. The gun lobby huddled to discuss how to "play it" and how to phrase their "heartfelt" sympathy press release. They knew this time was different from the other horrifying mass shootings.

Following the mourning came the blaming. Pundits and politicians aimed their sights at the mentally ill, Hollywood, video games, bullying in school and single mothers. The NRA blamed guns, not too many guns, but rather too few guns.

Amid surging gun sales, a barrage of angry rhetoric including threats of impeachment, petitions to deport dissenters, thinly veiled threats of violence and talk of secession, President Obama announced his plan to reduce gun violence in our country.

The plan is comprehensive, sensible and thoughtful. There is no one thing that can stop another Newtown but this proposal is a step forward. It doesn't violate the Second Amendment. It doesn't take everyone's guns away. Many items in the plan will go into effect immediately by executive order, but Congress must act on the more meaningful aspects of the plan.

This is a defining moment for our country. Will we embrace the dystopian future envisioned by the NRA? A future where everyone is armed, but nobody is free. Or will we move our nation toward a more peaceful future?

As someone not born in the United States, I have often wondered why so many -- but not all -- Americans believe they need guns "for protection." What is it in their psyches or culture that they fear? Do they represent a national paranoia?

When was the last time officials or even individuals used indiscriminate force to endanger our individual rights?

When was the last time Americans faced "civil unrest?"

Do we really believe that one day soon we will need to form a militia to protect us from an undefined threat? Who is mad enough to invade us?

I can understand and support people who want guns for sport and hunting, but it makes no sense to own a multi-bullet machine gun for such purposes.

As I understand it, such fears fall into three categories: tyranny, invasion and crime.

But the tyranny and invasion "fears" make no sense. The fact that those in authority may want people to register weapons and be sure the owners have them under control at all times is commendable.

The fear of crime is a different story. The stark reality is that some people, because of where they live, the work they do, the hours they work, deserve guns for protection. But background checks are a must, an absolute necessity to make sure that the individual seeking to purchase a weapon has a valid reason to carry it. This should avoid individuals with previous criminal records or mental problems.

The President's executive proposals, as I understand them, may make marginal differences in gun violence, probably at large cost. To me, the only other useful proposal, one requiring congressional action, is the ban on high-capacity magazines. This has a small chance of actually becoming law, and it may have some effect. No matter what sort of weapon a person uses, the necessity of re-loading provides a small window for counter-attack, whether it be from a gun, pepper spray, a club, a fist, a tackle, or even a flying chair.

I checked out the websites of three gunmakers: Heckler & Koch, Beretta, and Ruger. The sites are very similar, as are the products. Most of the sites divide their rifles into two categories: "hunting" and "tactical." The tactical weapons are clearly designed for police and military use. Yet they are basically variations on a theme, and some of the tactical weapons resemble the hunting weapons. Defining the difference between the two will be a legislative nightmare. The ban on assault weapons will cost huge political capital, probably fail, and if passed, have minimal effect.

Several years ago, I shot a Mini-14 (a small assault rifle). It felt like, well, a rifle. I couldn't hit a gong target at 50 yards. You wouldn't hunt big game with it. An assault rifle is a rifle. Yes, they accept the large magazines. So limit the magazine to 10 rounds.

New coordinator pushes Buffs to work, play at level he expectsJim Leavitt has discovered this much about his new defense at Colorado: He has some talent with which to work, but his players need to put it in another gear. Full Story